dgc@xxxxxxx (David Chinner) writes:
> using a spinlock per cpu for superblock counter exclusion results in
> a preempt counter overflow at 256p and above. Change the exclusion mechanism
> to use atomic bit operations and busy wait loops to emulate the spin
> lock exclusion mechanism but without the preempt count issues.
That sounds like the totally wrong place to fix this.
Wouldn't it be better to fix the spinlocks instead instead of hacking
around this? After all any other code on that big box could run
into the same issue.
-Andi